Awareness of Filipino Graduate Students towards Philippine

The Normal LightsVolume 14, No. 2 (2020)

Suggested Citation: Hernandez, H. P. (2020). Awareness of Filipino graduate students towards Philippine English. The Normal Lights, 14(2), 1 – 27.

Awareness of Filipino Graduate Students towards Philippine English

Hjalmar Punla [email protected] Studies Division, Department of HumanitiesUniversity of the Philippines Los Baños

Abstract While World Englishes (WEs) studies have been charted in Applied Linguistics and English Language Education research, WEs awareness is an area underexplored (Ahn, 2014, 2015). The study investigated Filipino graduate students’ awareness towards Philippine English (PhE) in terms of its meanings, features, and uses. Using descriptive survey through a five-point Likert scale questionnaire answered by 95 graduate students from a premier Teacher Education Institution (TEI), the study revealed that they had moderate awareness of PhE. Likewise, they could be safely perceived as relatively aware of PhE. However, this finding does not certainly mean that they were all-knowledgeable of PhE. Therefore, the study recommends that PhE must be ‘legitimately’ promoted across Philippine education system. Its promotion can only materialize through the mandate of the Commission on Higher Education and Department of Education. The study draws its implications toward Philippine educational policies, teacher education, and English language curricula.

Keywords: Filipino graduate students, language awareness, Philippine English

2


Introduction

As a global linguistic phenomenon, World Englishes (WEs) has motivated linguists to endeavor studies on the diverse areas of linguistic research (Bolton, 2020; Jenkins, 2015; Mahboob & Liang, 2014). In the Philippines, Philippine English (PhE) for over 50 years has been a controversial issue in Philippine Applied Linguistics (AL) and English Language Education (ELE). Sociolinguistically, PhE is an outer circle English (B. Kachru, 2005) (norm-developing). Diachronically, it has reached either nativization (stabilization of second language system, a proof of the influences of the substrate interlanguage processes, and adoption of English from the local people) (Schneider, 2007) or endonormative stabilization (continuing recognition through dictionaries and literatures) (Borlongan, 2016).

Since Llamzon (1969) introduced PhE into the landscape of Philippine linguistics, it has undergone various investigations concerning its phonology (Flores, 2014), lexicon (Salazar, 2017), grammar (Morales, 2015), intelligibility (Dita & De Leon, 2017), etc. However, the Filipinos’ awareness towards PhE remains indistinguishable (Dimaculangan, 2018). Filipino researchers have alerted the importance of awareness towards PhE (Alieto & Rillo, 2018; Cruz, 2011; Dimaculangan, 2018), but had overlooked addressing whether Filipinos are aware of it or not. Thus, this study attempts to investigate the awareness of Filipino graduate students (henceforth, FGSs) towards PhE.

PhE: Innovative Variety

WEs refers to nativized English varieties which have developed worldwide reflecting their speakers’ pragmatic and cultural norms (Kirkpatrick, 2007) – one of which is PhE. Bautista (2000) identified PhE’s standard grammatical features (subject-verb and pronoun-antecedent disagreements, etc.)

3


which are unique in Filipinos’ spoken and written registers. They vary from the ‘standardized’ norms of the inner circle varieties (e.g. American English [AmE]).

PhE is not English that falls short of AmE norms (Bautista, 2008). Its features are not errors but innovations (Gonzalez, 2005) caused by language variations in the grammatically, semantically, and pragmatically diverse Philippines where English is functionally native (B. Kachru, 1997). B. Kachru (1985) opines that ‘non-standard’ norms (e.g. of PhE) against AmE/BrE (British English) may not apply to new Englishes because those are ‘acceptable’ to their speakers.

PhE Awareness: An Underexplored Area

The National Council in the United Kingdom for Language in Education (NCLE) (as cited in Malmberg, 2001, p. 141) and Association of Language Awareness (ALA) (2020) explain language awareness (LA) as an individual’s sensitivity to and explicit knowledge about language in different contexts (e.g. language use, learning, and teaching). This concept of LA is adopted in this study. WEs awareness is important because it “plays an essential role in forming the basis for the acceptance and growth of language variations within a society” (Ahn, 2014, p. 15), determines effective and productive communication (Takeshita, 2010), aids in multicultural understanding (B. Kachru, 2005; Matsuda, 2020); and helps fit teaching materials and facilitates learning (Matsuda, 2020).

PhE is a legitimate variety (Bautista, 2001). Philippine-based survey studies (Alieto & Rillo, 2018; Bautista, 2001; Bernardo & Madrunio, 2015; Borlongan, 2009; Hernandez, 2020) which used questionnaires acclaim that it must be assimilated into English as a Second Language (ESL) classes. Bautista (2001) revealed that Filipino English faculty from three universities generally accepted PhE.

4


Borlongan (2009) discovered that undergraduate students considered PhE as Filipino identity distinguishing them as unashamed PhE speakers. Alieto and Rillo (2018) identified that private and public secondary Filipino English teachers exhibited positive attitude towards PhE despite their educational attainment, teaching experience, etc. Bernardo and Madrunio (2015) reported that PhE grammatical features (e.g. based from) are prevalent in classroom interactions, textbooks, and tests implying that teachers and learners cling to AmE and PhE. Comparatively, Hernandez (2020) found that graduate students showed confidence in using a pluricentric model (PhE and AmE) in ESL pedagogy.

Foreign studies on WEs awareness are rather scarce as suggested by studies (Ahn, 2014; 2015; Tiïën, 2008) that used survey questionnaires and a voice recognition test (Jinpatak & Teo, 2012). Korean and non-Korean English teachers lacked awareness of Singaporean (SE), Indian (IE), and Korean Englishes (KE) (Ahn, 2014). Likewise, Korean and foreign English teachers exhibited uncertainty and refusal to SE, IE, Chinese (ChE), and Japanese Englishes (JE) (Ahn, 2015). Most Vietnamese students were unaware of WEs and preferred AmE and BrE (Tiïën, 2008). Thai English learners lacked awareness as hinted by incorrectly pinpointing the nationalities of WEs speakers’ voices (Jindapitak & Teo, 2012). Other studies instead focused on raising students’ WEs awareness (Golloway & Rose, 2014), and incorporating WEs into ESL courses (Ates, Eslami, & Wright, 2015), but not about gauging the outer circle English speakers’ awareness towards their nativized variety.

Despite their positive outcomes, Philippine-based studies had unfocused on Filipinos’ PhE awareness since they examined attitudes and acceptability alone. Their findings cannot be absolutely linked to the awareness of its users. Thus, they cannot be directly professed as cognizant or incognizant of PhE. English teachers across Philippine universities

5


are oblivious of PhE as they had negative attitudes toward 94/99 PhE words (Gustilo & Dimaculangan, 2018). When a Filipino Economics professor was asked by the researcher himself about which among PhE, AmE and BrE is used in writing economics research, the professor queried, “What is PhE?”. Similar cynicism was obvious when 30 English teachers at a national conference at the Teachers’ Camp in Baguio City had questioned PhE (Dimaculangan, 2018). In Linguistic Society of the Philippines 50th Anniversary and International Conference 2019, only one presented a study about awareness of PhE (Hernandez, 2019). Hitherto, no study has been published making PhE awareness as the point of investigation. Given these arguments, the important question that calls for a clearer answer is whether Filipinos are aware of PhE.

Addressing this gap is practically significant. PhE researchers, academics, and advocates can be informed about the facets of PhE that could be familiar or unfamiliar to Filipinos. This could alert them to initiate steps in advancing PhE. Equally important, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and Department of Education (DepEd) could make more informed decisions for educational policies, teacher education, and English language curricula.

Framework of the Study

The study is anchored in circles within a circle paradigm, and the meanings, features, and uses of PhE. Martin (2014) posits that PhE comprises ‘circles within circle’ representing (without fixed distinctions) PhE sub-varieties spoken by Filipinos across social strata. Inner circle PhE includes Filipinos who hold bachelor’s and advanced degrees, use and recognize AmE and PhE, and produce scholarly works. FGSs belong to this; thus, grassroots users of inner circle PhE (Hernandez, 2020). Outer circle PhE involves Filipinos

6


who helplessly use and promote PhE (e.g. Filipino [student] teachers); thus, ambivalent (Martin, 2014). Expanding circle PhE includes Filipinos who hardly access and speak English due to economic status, among others (e.g. Filipino nannies speaking Yaya English).

Filipino linguists across generations have described PhE in significant ways. This could be characterized into meanings (denotations), features (characteristics), and uses (functions) (Figure 1).

Meanings Features Uses

• is a legitimate (standard) English variety in the Philippines (Llamzon (1969, as cited in Martin, 2014)

• has sub-varieties (i.e. educated PhE, Taglish, Yaya English, and Carabao English) (Bautista, 1982, 1998; Martin, 2014)

• marks Filipinos have owned English and have freed themselves from the colonizing power of the native speakers (Borlongan, 2009)

• is a pressing issue in language policy and planning (Hernandez, 2019, 2020)

• mirrors the national and cultural identity of Filipinos (Bautista, 1997)

• has distinct phonology, lexicon, and syntax (Bautista, 1997, 2000; Gonzalez, 1985; Gonzalez et al., 2003; Llamzon, 1969)

• has acceptable variants (e.g. fill up, result to) from AmE (e.g. fill-in, result in) (Bernardo, 2013)

• has been codified into dictionaries and grammars (Borlongan, 2011)

• is appropriate, comprehensible, and intelligible in communication (Dayag, 2007; Dita & De Leon, 2017)

• is reflected in Filipino English textbooks and instructional materials (Dayag, 2010; Bernardo, 2018)

• is used by Filipinos in communicating within the country (Bautista, 2001).

• has the potential to be implemented into Philippine ESL classroom (Bautista, 2001; Bernardo, 2018)

• is the norm in teaching English vocabulary and grammar as used by Filipino English teachers. (Bernardo, 2013)

• is the norm in testing the speaking and writing skills of Filipino learners as used by Filipino English teachers (Bernardo, 2013)

• is used by Filipino learners when performing oral communicative activities, and when responding to test questions (Bernardo, 2013)

• is often used in local media (Dayag, 2008)

Figure 1. Meanings, Features, and Uses of PhE.

7


Filipino Graduate

Students’ Awareness of Philippine English

Meanings

Features

Uses

Figure 2. Framework of the Study

The study’s framework (Figure 2) involves FGSs from the inner circle PhE. Their awareness towards PhE was explored in terms of its meanings, features, and uses. Because they are educated PhE users, FGSs play a vital part in confirming the existing awareness of Filipinos towards PhE.

Purposes of the Research

As new Englishes face rejection and reservation (Gustilo & Dimaculangan, 2018; van der Walt, 2007) in English pedagogy, it is a must to examine Filipinos’ PhE awareness because awareness is imperative in establishing the basis for the recognition and advancement of WEs’ linguistic differences (Ahn, 2014, 2015), and instituting effective intercultural communication and equality among WEs speakers (Matsuda, 2020; Sharifian, 2012) as in the case of Filipinos as PhE speakers. Thus, this study examines FGSs’ awareness towards PhE.

Methodology

Research Design

Descriptive-survey design was utilized. It collects numeric data, interprets trends/patterns from them, and relates them with previous research (Creswell, 2014). Since this study was an ‘attempt’ to examine PhE awareness, the researcher avers

8


that using such design is the most attainable, efficient, and cost-effective (Dornyei, 2003; Dornyei & Taguchi, 2010) to urgently fill-in the gap of the past studies.

Participants

The participants were 95 graduate students from a Teacher Education Institution [TEI] (taking master’s in English Language Teaching, Linguistics, and Reading, and doctorates in AL, and ELE programs) selected by convenience.

FGSs were chosen for the following reasons: they were not considered in the previous studies; play dual roles (graduate students and professionals); and are grassroots PhE users.

Instrument

The questionnaire, adapted from Bernardo’s (2013) study, was structured into: 1. awareness statements; and 2. FGSs profile. Part 1 comprised of 22 statements about meanings (7), features (6), and uses (9) of PhE in a five-point Likert scale, following the range in Bernardo’s (2013) study. Other items were added based on PhE’s current literature. Part 2 contained 13 closed-ended questions on respondents’ demographic profile. In language surveys, the respondents’ profile is part of the analysis (Tan, 2019) because it requires participants’ information relevant to deducing the study’s results (Dornyei, 2003).

A published researcher, Ph.D. holder, and WEs professor at a prominent university validated the questionnaire. It was pre-tested with 10 respondents (Bagtasos & Espere, 2010) that is larger than the acceptable number of 3 to 4 people in pre-testing items in language survey questionnaires (Dornyei, 2003; Dornyei & Taguchi, 2010). This led to the revision of some items for precision and conciseness. The validation yielded 0.71 reliability coefficient (Good), calculated through Cronbach’s alpha.

9


Data Collection and Analysis

A signed informed consent letter for FGSs and graduate professors was secured from the Dean, and Languages Programs Coordinator of the Graduate College. Upon receipt of the signed consent letter, the professors and FGSs accommodated the researcher to administer the survey, while the others requested for other dates to conduct it. The researcher took the first 30 minutes of every class. Instructions were provided and questions were entertained before FGSs started answering. Questionnaires were collated afterwards. FGSs were given appreciation tokens.

FGSs’ responses were recorded in Microsoft Excel. Partially answered questionnaires were discarded. Data (nominal and ordinal) were statistically analyzed using weighted mean and standard deviation.

Results and Discussion

This section presents the results and discussion. It is worth reiterating that this study adopts the concept of LA provided by the NCLE (as cited in Malmberg, 2001, p. 141) and ALA (2020).

Results

Table 1. FGSs’ profile.

Items Results Total1 Sex Male 26 95

Female 69

2 Age 20-29 56

95

30-39 27

40-49 10

50-59 1

60-69 1

10


3 Graduate level Doctorate 19 95

Master’s 76

4 Teaching level Elementary 11

95Secondary 58

Tertiary 16

Secondary and Tertiary

4

Secondary and Elementary

1

Not teaching 5

5 Education Sector

Public 59

95Private 31

Unemployed 5

6 Teaching Experience

Local 81 95

Overseas 14

Currently teaching in the Philippines

9

Unemployed 5

The FGSs’ profile denotes that they are also Filipino English teachers (Table 1). Sixty-nine of them were females while 26 were males. Thus, females were more than twice as males. Fifty-six of them ranged 20-29 years old, 27 (30-39), 10 (40-49), 1 (50-59), and 1 (60-69). The majority, hence, were younger. By graduate level, 76 were taking master’s, while 19 were taking doctorates. On teaching level, 58 were teaching in secondary, 16 in tertiary, 11 in elementary, 5 not teaching, 4 teaching in secondary and tertiary, and 1 teaching in secondary and elementary. By sector, 59 were employed in public schools. Thirty-one were affiliated with private schools; 5 were unemployed. Eighty-one gained local teaching experience; 14 earned overseas teaching experience. From these 14, 9 were teaching in the Philippines while the other 5 (unemployed) were not teaching.

Overall, the awareness of FGSs was moderate at 3.49. Their PhE awareness in terms of meanings, features, and uses is hereby presented.

11


Meanings

Table 2. Meanings of PhE.

Items ResultsMean SD Interpretation

1 There is a local English variety called Philippine English (PhE).

4.68 16.70 Extremely aware

2 PhE has varieties (i.e. educated PhE, Colegiala PhE, Yaya PhE)

3.34 7.91 Moderately aware

3 PhE is Taglish. 2.42 7.18Slightly aware

4 PhE is Carabao English. 1.97 13.36

5 PhE is educated Filipino English. 3.54 12.59 Very aware

6 Incorporating PhE in the English language curricula is a pressing issue in language policy and planning.

3.48 10.12Moderately

aware

7 PhE is a mark that Filipinos have owned English and have freed themselves from the colonizing power of the native speakers.

3.72 13.84

Very aware

Overall 3.22 Moderately aware

aSD = Standard deviationbLegend = 5.00-4.51 (Extremely aware); 4.50-3.51 (Very aware); 3.50-2.51 (Moderately aware); 2.50-1.51 (Slightly aware); 1.50-00.51 (Not at all aware)

On meanings, FGSs had moderate awareness towards PhE (Table 2). At 4.68, the existence of PhE as a local variety was rated extremely aware (1), meaning that they were exceedingly knowledgeable about PhE as Filipino English variety. This contradicts Filipinos’ monocentric belief that AmE (and BrE) are the only varieties in the Philippines (Bautista, 2001). Comparatively, they construed that PhE as educated Filipino English (5, 3.54) and as a symbol of Filipinos’ ownership of English liberating them from native English speakers’ (NESs) hegemonic influence (7, 3.72) as very aware, From this trend, it can be gleaned that FGSs are

12


highly conscious about PhE’s existence, educated variety, and representations; thus, signifying their clear recognition of PhE as to these three notions.

Conversely, they rated that PhE has sub-varieties (2, 3.34) and incorporating PhE in the English curricula is an unyielding problem in language policy and planning (6, 3.48) as moderately aware. Notwithstanding their high knowledge of PhE as educated variety, they however had moderate consciousness about its sub-varieties. Moreover, despite being English teachers, they too had moderate awareness of integrating PhE into the English curricula. These findings show that FGSs may be highly aware about PhE’s existence as a local variety, but they may not be as highly cognizant about the equally important facets of PhE.

Aligned with the results of item 2 were those of items 3 and 4. FGSs assessed PhE as Taglish (3, 2.42) and PhE as Carabao English (4, 1.97) as slightly aware. Aside from the potential that they lack knowledge about PhE varieties, their slight awareness on items 3 and 4 can also be attributed to many of them who are teaching in public and private schools that implement monocentric ESL curricula. Simply put, the curriculum probably has influenced their awareness.

Features

FGSs were generally very aware of PhE features (Table 3). They rated PhE having its own accent, phonology, vocabulary, and grammar (8, 4.03), reflecting Filipinos’ national and cultural identity (9, 3.867), and embodying appropriateness, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in communication (13, 3.65). Remarkably, FGSs’s positive responses on these (items 8, 9, 13) were consistent to their high awareness of PhE as a symbol of Filipino identity and independence from NESs (7). This strongly hints that they welcome PhE as their own English variety which they use when communicating in English.

13


Table 3. Features of PhE.


8 PhE has its own accent, phonology, vocabulary, and grammar.

4.03 15.73

Very aware

9 PhE mirrors the national and cultural identity of Filipinos.

3.867 13.58

10 PhE is reflected in Filipino English textbooks and instructional materials.

3.457 10.61

Moderately aware

11 PhE has been codified into dictionaries and grammars.

3.122 11.20

12 Educated PhE has acceptable variants (e.g. fill up, result to, based from) from American English (e.g. fill-in, result in, based on).

3.47 10.17

13 Educated PhE embodies appropriateness, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in communication.

3.65 13.47

Very aware

Overall 3.70 Very awareaSD = Standard deviationbLegend = 5.00-4.51 (Extremely aware); 4.50-3.51 (Very aware); 3.50-2.51 (Moderately aware); 2.50-1.51 (Slightly aware); 1.50-00.51 (Not at all aware)

Contrastingly, they rated PhE being used in textbooks and teaching materials (10, 3.457), being codified into dictionaries and grammars (11, 3.122), and having acceptable linguistic variants (12, 3.47) as moderately aware. These results were matching their moderate awareness of integrating PhE in the English curricula (item 6) which suggests that FGSs possess relatively ample knowledge about PhE’s pedagogic potential in ESL classrooms. This slant indicates that FGSs revealed a generally consistent awareness of PhE features.

14


Uses

Table 4. Uses of PhE.


14 PhE is the English variety Filipinos often use in intranational communication.

3.509 12.06

Very aware

15 PhE is the English variety Filipinos often use in local media.

3.503 14.61

16 PhE has the potential to be implemented into the English language classroom as a module or unit within the compulsory or elective part of the English language curriculum.

3.27 10

Moderately aware

17 PhE as the norm in teaching English vocabulary is used by Filipino English teachers.

3.45 13.95

18 PhE as the norm in teaching English grammar is used by Filipino English teachers.

3.41 14.28

19 PhE as the norm in testing the speaking skills of Filipino learners is used by Filipino English teachers.

3.32 14.61

20 PhE as the norm in testing the writing skills of Filipino learners is used by Filipino English teachers.

3.324 12

21 PhE is the English variety used by Filipino learners when performing oral communicative activities.

3.7 14.63

Very aware22 PhE is the English variety used by Filipino learners when responding to test questions that require sentence or paragraph writing.

3.644 13.93

Overall 3.46 Moderately aware

aSD = Standard deviationbLegend = 5.00-4.51 (Extremely aware); 4.50-3.51 (Very aware); 3.50-2.51 (Moderately aware); 2.50-1.51 (Slightly aware) ; 1.50-00.51 (Not at all aware)

15


Corresponding to FGSs’ awareness on meanings, they also had a general moderate awareness on the uses (Table 4). FGSs rated PhE being used by Filipinos in communicating intranationally (14, 3.509), in national media (15, 3.503), being used by Filipino learners in performing oral activities (21, 3.7), and in answering tests in sentences/paragraphs (22, 3.644) as very aware. Positively, their awareness (very aware) of PhE uses in intranational communication (14) and local media (15) were steady with their awareness (very aware) of PhE’s appropriateness, comprehensibility, and intelligibility (13). FGSs’ high awareness on these uses can be linked to their exposure in communicating in English with Filipinos and viewing and reading Philippine media (e.g. CNN Philippines; Manila Bulletin). It can be associated with their identity as English teachers who teach and test the English skills of their learners.

FGSs’ high awareness (very aware) of items 14, 15, and 21 is analogous to their moderate awareness of PhE having the potential as a module/unit in the courses of English curriculum (16, 3.27), being used by English teachers in teaching vocabulary (3.45, 17), in teaching grammar (18, 3.41), in testing Filipino learners’ speaking (19, 3.32), and in testing writing (20, 3.324). Interestingly, FGSs’ moderate awareness of these was stable to their moderate awareness of PhE features: reflected in textbooks (item 10); codified into dictionaries and grammars (11); and possessed grammatical innovations (12). As these uses and features signify PhE as the norm in ESL teaching and testing, FGSs seemed to ratify that as English teachers, they incorporate PhE norms in their classes.

Discussion

This study investigated FGSs’ awareness towards PhE. Examining FGSs’ PhE awareness is crucial to the acknowledgment and promotion of WEs (Ahn, 2014, 2015),

16


and initiation of positive intercultural communication and impartiality among WEs speakers (Matsuda, 2020; Sharifian, 2012).

The overall moderate awareness of FGSs connotes points for discussion. On meanings, FGSs’ extreme awareness towards PhE is strikingly positive. This contradicts the results of Ahn (2014, 2015), and Tiïën (2008) who determined that: Korean and non-Korean English teachers lacked awareness of SE, IE, ChE, and JE (Ahn, 2014); Korean and foreign English teachers rejected SE, IE, ChE, and JE (Ahn, 2015); Vietnamese English students lacked WEs awareness but preferred AmE and BrE (Tiïën, 2008). Optimistically, FGSs’ extreme awareness on the existence of PhE much supports Bautista (2001) and Alieto and Rillo’s (2018) findings that English faculty in three universities recognized PhE, and secondary English teachers showed positive attitude toward PhE, respectively. Favorably, FGSs’ high awareness of PhE as an insignia of Filipinos’ ownership of the language, and embodiment of their freedom from NESs strongly corroborates Borlongan’s (2009) assertion that undergraduate students signified PhE as a mark of Filipinos. Thus, echoing Francisco Sionil Jose’s pronouncement that Filipinos have colonized AmE through PhE (Bautista, 1997). These congruencies indicate that PhE has been accustomed to and embraced by these Filipino groups.

Other extents (moderately and slightly aware) were arbitrary due to FGSs’ irregularity of their knowledge about PhE meanings. For example, FGSs were slightly aware of Taglish and Carabao English and moderately aware of educated, Colegiala, and Yaya PhE notwithstanding their high awareness of PhE as educated Filipino English. Possibly, this might be because they are outer and expanding circle PhE speakers. Their slight awareness of PhE varieties much varied from their high awareness of educated PhE. In short, FGSs may be extremely cognizant of PhE’s existence

17


as a local variety and very familiar of its educated variety. However, these extents unnecessarily equate to bearing full knowledge about PhE for there could be other notions of PhE unknown to them.

New findings were also identified. Regarding features, FGSs were very aware about PhE’s accent, phonology, vocabulary, and grammar, national and cultural identity, and appropriateness, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in communication associated with their awareness that PhE is a mark of Filipinos’ liberation from NESs’ hegemony. Regarding uses, their high awareness that Filipinos often use PhE in intranational communication and local media was steady with their high awareness that PhE is appropriate, comprehensible, and intelligible in communication. It turns out that FGSs were highly aware of these PhE uses. Withal, their high awareness of PhE used by Filipino students in performing oral activities and answering tests can be allied to their identity as English teachers who may have observed PhE’s linguistic features in their students’ speaking and writing performances.

Apparently, FGSs’ moderate awareness towards meanings (except on PhE sub-varieties), features, and uses of PhE was leaning towards its pedagogic potential. From this pattern, what is thought-provoking is whether their moderate awareness indicates ‘real’ and ‘adequate’ consciousness (‘true’ moderate awareness) or it implies scarcely enough knowledge due to influencing factors. This point is hereby elucidated.

On meanings, FGSs’ moderate awareness about incorporating PhE in English curricula may be attributed to the majority of FGSs taking master’s degrees (76/95). Master’s students may not be fully informed about such notion possibly because their curricula at the TEI offer no WEs as a compulsory course.

18


On features, their moderate awareness of PhE’s manifestation in textbooks and teaching resources, inclusion into grammars and dictionaries, and acceptability of linguistic variants could be concomitant to many of FGSs (59/95) teaching in public schools. Public school teachers use commonly believed exonormative instructional materials, prescribed by the DepEd (Hernandez, 2020). Similarly, the minority of FGSs (31/95) teach in private schools adopting textbooks thought to be conforming to NESs’ norms (Bernardo, 2018). Public and private teachers utilize AmE/BrE supplementary references (e.g. grammar textbooks) because they are accessible (online/offline) and assimilate AmE/BrE because it is perceived as monolithic standard (Bernardo, 2018). As teachers, FGSs have been probably dominated by educational policies and linguistic norms.

On uses, FGS’ moderate awareness of PhE as the norm in English classes, teaching, and testing can also be rooting from the majority of FGSs affiliated with basic education. They possibly knew that PhE has the potential to be integrated in ESL classrooms and is employed ‘inadvertently’ by teachers as the norm in English teaching and testing. However, PhE is still unrecognized by the DepEd as it is not formally placed into the educational policies of and not widely acknowledged across education levels; PhE is hitherto illicitly reinforced.

Conclusion

Generally, FGSs had moderate awareness of PhE. Hence, it could be safely concluded that they were not relatively oblivious of PhE (except on Taglish and Carabao English). Nevertheless, it unnecessarily indicates that FGSs were all-knowing of PhE; thus, promotion of PhE is a dire need. Raising WEs awareness is urgent for WEs to gain recognition (Ahn, 2015; Jenkins, 2015). High/extreme PhE awareness among Filipinos may be achieved if PhE is ‘legitimately’

19


promoted across the education system. Advancing PhE implies implications toward educational policies, teacher education, and English language curricula.

On educational policies, CHED and DepEd as policymakers are responsible for the ‘legitimate’ promotion of PhE which can only materialize if they will lead in vigorously fostering it across education levels. Without them, PhE would remain generally immaterial and less recognized. To achieve this, they must, firstly, be highly/extremely aware of and positive towards PhE. Ascertaining CHED and DepEd plus Philippine universities’ (especially TEIs) awareness and stance toward PhE may require national research initiatives. Whatever outcomes these research undertakings reveal, the policymakers necessitate instigating a resilient language policy, for instance, ‘Philippine English Policy’ aiming to assimilate PhE in instruction and assessment. Essentially, they must prioritize such promotion in teacher education and English language curricula because these play a significant role in instilling linguistic literacy.

On teacher education, the policymakers and TEIs should make collaborations (e.g. Memoranda of Agreement). With the policymakers’ support, TEIs could introduce PhE with pre- and in-service teachers (across specializations) and graduate students (especially in linguistic disciplines) by developing and offering ESL and multi-/intercultural communication, instructional materials, teaching methodology, and assessment courses grounded in WEs framework. Partnering with CHED-, DepEd-, PRC (Professional Regulation Commission)-, and CSC (Civil Service Commission)-affiliated training centers, TEIs may conduct seminar/webinar-workshops on teaching and testing learners from WEs perspective for teachers; and symposia and conferences about linguistic and pedagogical studies of PhE and WEs for teachers, administrators, and other Filipino professionals.

20


On English language curricula, the policymakers, TEIs, and English teachers need to jointly review and revise the Philippine ESL curricula. These academic stakeholders should adopt WEs model in curriculum development because English now differs from the English that its users had before (Bruthiax, 2003; Jenkins, 2015). The researcher appeals to the stakeholders to moor the ESL curricula in WEs paradigm where inclusivity of Englishes is inculcated (e.g. “English as a global language has developed into different English varieties like PhE, SE, etc.; “To communicate effectively, PhE speakers employ linguistic variants), so Filipinos could gain exposure to new Englishes. As curriculum implementers, Filipino English teachers must be consulted, for instance, in lessons/materials selection for they themselves are legitimate PhE speakers.

Although somewhat ambitious, these proposals are solid ways or perhaps the only way to broadly expose Filipinos to PhE and augment their awareness of (even attitudes towards) PhE. These may pave the path for the equality of PhE with inner circle Englishes and for all-inclusive (inter- and multi-cultural) understanding among Filipinos. Thus, PhE may put itself in either ‘total’ endormative stabililization or differentiation.

While the study has contributed to PhE research, it offers research trajectories. Its findings lack generalizability because of the number of respondents. Involving a larger number of FGSs is necessary. Like other surveys, this study might have had suffered from ‘social desirability’ where the findings represent what the respondents report to believe or feel rather than what they truly believe or feel (Dornyei & Taguchi, 2010). Future researchers should gather data more carefully. Other instruments (e.g. interviews) can be utilized to deduce more valid and reliable interpretations and attain further explicit knowledge of Filipinos regarding PhE. Comparing FGSs’ awareness of PhE with foreign graduate

21


students’ awareness of their respective Englishes is another angle worthy of exploration. Only FGSs from the education field served as respondents. Filipinos from other disciplines should also be involved; thus, providing a more concrete basis in upholding PhE. As PhE awareness is an underexplored niche in Philippine AL and ELE, more should be studied today and tomorrow.

■ ■ ■

Acknowledgement

The researcher acknowledges the Philippine Normal University-Manila for the permission to conduct this study.

References

Ahn, H. (2014). Researching awareness and attitudes: A study of world Englishes and English teachers in South Korea. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Ahn, H. (2015). Awareness of and attitudes to Asian Englishes: A study of English teachers in South Korea. Asian Englishes, 17(2), 132-151.

Alieto, E. O., & Rillo, R. M. (2018). Language attitudes of English language teachers (ELTs) towards Philippine English. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 13, 84–110.

Association of Language Awareness. (2020). About. Re-trieved from http://www.languageawareness.org/?page_id=48

Ates, B., Eslami, Z. R., & Wright, K. L. (2015). Incorporating world Englishes into undergraduate ESL education courses. World Englishes, 34(3), 485-501.

22


Bagtasos, R. P., & Espere, R. P. (2010). Quality of work life (QWL) of selected secondary school teachers in Davao City. Pamalandong, 4(1), 61-76.

Bautista, M. L. S. (1982). “Yaya” English. Philippine Studies, 30, 377-294.

Bautista, M. L. S. (Ed.) (1997). English is an Asian lan-guage: The Philippine context. Sydney: Macquarie Library.

Bautista, M. L. S. (2000). Defining standard Philippine En-glish: Its status and grammatical features. Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Bautista, M. L. S. (2001). Attitudes of English language faculty in three leading Philippine universities towards Philippine English. Asian Englishes, 4(1), 4-32.

Bautista, M. L. S. (2008). Investigating the grammatical features of Philippine English. In M. L. S. Bautista & K. Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and Literary Perspectives (pp. 201-218). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Bernardo, A. S. (2013). Toward an endonormative pedagogic model in the teaching of English grammar in Philippine Higher Education Institutions. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Santo Tomas, Manila.

Bernardo, A. S. (2018). An endocentric approach to English grammar teaching. In I. P. Martin (Ed.), Reconceptualizing English education in a multilingual society: English in the Philippines (pp. 101-118). Singapore: Springer.

Bernardo, A. S., & Madrunio, M. R. (2015). A framework for designing a Philippine-English-based pedagogic model for teaching English grammar. Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 3, 43-71.

23


Bolton, K. (2020). World Englishes: Current debates and fu-ture directions. In C. L. Nelson, Z. G. Proshina, & D. R. Davis (Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes, (pp. 743-760). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quan-titative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.

Borlongan, A. M. (2009). A survey on language use, atti-tudes, and identity in relation to Philippine English among young generation Filipinos: An initial sample from a private university. Philippine ESL Journal, 3, 74–107.

Borlongan, A. M. (2016). Relocating Philippine English in Schneider’s dynamic model. Asian Englishes, 18(3), 232-241.

Cruz, P. A. T. (2011). Code-switching, resistance, and reflec-tion: Language awareness through Philippine litera-ture in English. Asian Englishes, 14(2), 22-39.

Dayag, D. T. (2007). Exploring the intelligibility of Philip-pine English. Asian Englishes, 10(1), 4-23.

Dayag, D. T. (2008). English-language media in the Philip-pines: Description and research. In K. Bolton & M. L. S. Bautista (Eds.), Philippine English and Literary Perspectives (pp. 131–155). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Dayag, D. T. (2010). Philippine English and college text-books in oral communication: Exploring the link be-tween the world Englishes paradigm and L2 pedago-gy. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 41, 63-75.

Dimaculangan, N. G. (2018). Another look into Philippine English: Towards users’ awareness and celebration. International Journal of Advanced Research and Publications, 2(1), 17-22.

24


Dita, S. N., & De Leon, K. D. (2017). The intelligibility and comprehensibility of Philippine English to EFL speakers. Philippine ESL Journal, 19(2), 100-118.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Flores, E. R. (2014). Phonological features of basilectal Philippine English: An exploratory study. Interna-tional Journal of English and Literature, 5(6), 128-140.

Golloway, N., & Rose, H. (2014). Using listening journals to raise awareness of Global English in ELT. ELT Journal, 68(4), 386-396.

Gonzalez, A. (1985). Studies on Philippine English. Singa-pore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Gonzalez, A. (1997). The history of English in the Philip-pines. In M. L. S. Bautista (Ed.), English is an Asian language: The Philippine context (pp. 25-40). Aus-tralia: The Macquarie Library Pty., Ltd.

Gonzalez, A. (2005). Distinctive grammatical features of Philippine literature in English: Influencing or influenced? In D. T. Dayag, & J. S. Quakenbush (Eds.), Literature and language education in the Philippines and beyond: A festschrift in honor of Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista (pp. 15-26). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.

Gonzalez, A., Jambalos, T., & Romero, C. S. (2003). Three studies on Philippine English across generations: To-wards an Integration and some Implications. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.

25


Gustilo, L., & Dimaculangan, N. (2018). Attitudes of Fili-pino English teachers toward 21st century Philippine English writing. Advanced Science Letters, 24(11), 8349-8352.

Hernandez, H. P. (2019, March). Graduate students’ aware-ness and attitudes toward Philippine English. Paper presented at 2019 Linguistic Society of the Philip-pines International Conference (2019 LSPIC), De La Salle University, Manila.

Hernandez, H. P. (2020). Filipino graduate students’ attitudes toward teaching educated Philippine English: A sample from a premier teacher education institution. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 20(1), 31-42.

Jenkins, J. (2015). Global Englishes: A resource book for students (3rd ed.). Oxford: Routledge.

Jindapitak, N., & Teo, A. (2012). Thai tertiary English majors’ attitudes towards and awareness of world Englishes. Journal of Studies in the English Language, 7, 74-116.

Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification, and socio-linguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk, H. G. Widdowson, & Y. Cant`u (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures, (pp. 11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kachru, B. B. (1997). English as an Asian language. In M. L. S. Bautista (Ed.), English is an Asian Language: The Philippine context (pp. 1-23). Australia: The Macqua-rie Library Pty., Ltd.

Kachru, B. B. (2005). Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

26


Llamzon, T. A. (1969). Standard Filipino English. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Mahboob, A., & Liang, J. (2014). Researching and critiquing world Englishes. Asian Englishes, 16(2), 125-140.

Malmberg, P. (2001). Språklig medvetenhet. In P. Malmberg (Ed.), Språkboken: En antologi om språkundervisning och språkinlärning (pp.141-149). Stockholm: Myndigheten för Skolutveckling.

Martin, I. P. (2014). Philippine English revisited. World En-glishes, 33(1), 50-59.

Matsuda, A. (2020). World Englishes and pedagogy. In C.L. Nelson, Z.G. Proshina, & D.R. Davis (Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes (2nd ed.) (pp. 686-702). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Morales, M. (2015). A grammar of adjunct adverbials in Philippine English. (Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion). De La Salle University, Manila.

Salazar, D. (2017). Philippine English in the Oxford English Dictionary: Recent advancements and implications for ESL in the Philippines. Philippine ESL Journal, 19(2), 45-59.

Schneider, E. W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties of English around the world. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sharifian, F. (2012). World Englishes, intercultural com-munication and requisite competences. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and in-tercultural communication (pp. 310-322). USA and Canada: Routledge.

Takeshita, Y. (2010). East Asian Englishes: Japan and Korea. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of world Englishes (pp. 265-281). New York, USA: Routledge.

27


Tan, Y. (2019). The use of surveys and questionnaires in world Englishes research. In P. De Costa, D. Crowther, & J. Maloney (Eds.), Investigating world Englishes: Research methodology and practical applications (pp. 69-86). London and NY: Routledge.

Tiïën, N. Q. (2008). Awareness of world Englishes of Vietnamese users of English. Paper presented at 2008 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics, Taiwan.

van der Walt, C. (2007). A world Englishes perspective in English language teacher training: Rejection and reluctance. Journal of Language Teaching, 41(1), 101-11.

Documents

Awareness of Filipino Graduate Students towards Philippine